petra1000

Problem: In Genesis 49:5–7, Jacob pronounces a curse upon Levi: “Cursed be their [Simeon’s and Levi’s] anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel” (v. 7). However, in Deuteronomy 33:8–11, Moses blessed Levi: “They [the Levites] shall teach Jacob Your judgments, and Israel Your Law… Bless his substance, Lord, and accept the work of his hands” (Deut. 33:10–11).

Solution: Jacob pronounces this curse upon Levi and Simeon because of the cruel manner in which they took revenge upon the inhabitants of Shechem (Gen. 34:1–31). As a punishment for their crime, they would be scattered among the other tribes of Israel so that they would not obtain a land possession of their own. However, the curse upon Levi was turned into a blessing for all the tribes of Israel. For it was God’s plan to scatter the descendants of Levi throughout Israel so that “They shall teach Jacob Your judgments, and Israel Your law” (Deut. 33:10).

There is no contradiction between these two proclamations. Levi’s descendants were scattered, as Jacob prophesied, but they were used by God to function as the priestly tribe throughout all Israel, as Moses had proclaimed. Levi was not given an inheritance of land among the other tribes because, in Numbers 18:20, God had said, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor shall you have any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel.”

Problem: The Bible often states that there were twelve tribes of Israel. Yet, in three different passages, the lists are different. In fact, there are 14 different tribes listed as one of the 12 tribes.

Were there twelve tribes of Israel or fourteen?

Solution: In response, it must be noted that Jacob had only twelve sons. Their descendants comprised the original twelve tribes. However, for various reasons these same descendants are rearranged at different times into somewhat different groups of twelve. For example, in Genesis 48:22, Jacob grants to Joseph a double portion of the inheritance. In the list in Numbers, Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph, are substituted for the tribe of Joseph. Also, Levi was not given a portion of the land as an inheritance because the Levites functioned as priests. Scattered among all the tribes in 48 Levitical cities, they taught the tribes the statutes of the Lord (Deut. 33:10). Consequently, Joseph’s double portion is divided between Manasseh and Ephraim, his two sons in order to fill the space left by Levi.

In the Revelation passage, Joseph and Manasseh are counted separately, possibly indicating that Joseph and Ephraim (Joseph’s son) are counted as one tribe. Dan is omitted from that list, possibly because the Danites took their own allotment by force in an area north of Asher, effectively separating themselves from their original inheritance in the south. Further, the Danites were the first tribe to go into idolatry. Levi is listed here as a separate tribe, possibly because, after the cross, the Levites no longer function in the priestly office for all the tribes and, thus, could be given a specific land inheritance of their own. In each case, the biblical author is careful to preserve the original number 12, with its spiritual significance indicating heavenly perfection (cf. the gates and foundations of the heavenly City, Rev. 21).

Problem: In this verse, God promised Jacob, “I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again.” However, Jacob died in Egypt (Gen. 49:33) and never returned to the Land of Promise.

Solution: This promise was fulfilled to Jacob in several ways, any one of which would explain the difficulty. First, it was a promise to Jacob’s posterity who were brought back out of Egypt. This is indicated by the statement, “I will make of you a great nation” (v. 3). Second, Jacob was probably brought back from Egypt along with Joseph, though not alive (Gen. 50:25; Ex. 13:19). Finally, after the resurrection Jacob will return to the Land alive (cf. Matt. 8:11).

Problem: God declared to Moses, “No man shall see Me, and live” (Ex. 33:20, see comments on John 1:18). Moses was allowed only to see God’s “back” (Ex. 33:23). Yet the Bible informs us that Moses spoke with God “face to face” (Deut. 5:4). How could he speak to God face to face without seeing His face?

Solution: It is possible for a blind person to speak face to face with someone without seeing their face. The phrase “face to face” means personally, directly, or intimately. Moses had this kind of unmediated relationship with God. But he, like all other mortals, never saw the “face” (essence) of God directly.

Problem: Genesis 31:32 makes the statement that Jacob did not know that “Rachel had stolen” Laban’s idols. However, it seems that God blessed Rachel because she lied to Laban.

Solution: God did not bless Rachel either for stealing the idols or for lying about her deed. Simply because Laban did not discover that Rachel was the thief does not mean that God blessed her. On the contrary, it is more reasonable to assume that God did not expose Rachel’s theft in order to protect Jacob. Also, Genesis 35:16–19 reports that Rachel died in delivering her second son, Benjamin. In the intervening chapters between 31:32 and 35:19 very little is said about Rachel. The biblical record reveals that in fact God did not bless Rachel for what she did, but allowed her to fall into the background of importance until her painful death.

Problem: In Genesis 31:20, Jacob is said to have deceived Laban by not telling him that he was fleeing. However, God blessed Jacob by appearing to Laban and warning him not to speak either good or evil to Jacob (Gen. 31:24). How could God bless Jacob after he had deceived Laban?

Solution: First, it is not necessary to translate the Hebrew word in Genesis 31:20 as “deceived.” The passage literally states, “And Jacob stole Laban’s heart.” This is a Hebrew idiom which can be used in a given context to mean “to deceive” or “to outwit.” Jacob did not tell Laban that he was going to leave, nor did he tell Laban that he was going to stay. He may have left in secret because he feared Laban (cf. Gen. 31:2). Neither was Jacob obligated to remain with Laban, since he had fulfilled all the requirements of the contracts between them. In spite of the accusations by Laban, Jacob was justified in his fear and his action to leave without telling Laban.

Second, even on the assumption that Jacob was involved in deception, God would not bless him because of it, but in spite of his shortcomings. This kind of situation is an example of the principle that “Not everything recorded by the Bible is approved by the Bible” (see Introduction). God had chosen Jacob to become the father of the 12 tribes of Israel, not because of any righteousness in Jacob, but on the basis of God’s grace. God could bless Jacob according to His grace even though he was a sinner. Through Jacob’s experiences with Laban, and later his confrontation with Esau, and his wrestling with the angel of the Lord in the night, Jacob’s character was changed so that he became a fit vessel for God to use.

Problem: In Genesis 29:27 Laban tells Jacob to complete the bridal week of feasting with Leah, and then Rachel would be given to him. However, the verse also says that the contract between Laban and Jacob stipulated that in return for another seven years of service Rachel would be given to Jacob. When was Rachel given to Jacob, at the end of Leah’s bridal week, or at the end of the seven years service?

Solution: The passage indicates that Rachel was given to Jacob after the seven days which comprised the bridal week of Leah. The marriage feast generally lasted seven days (cf. Jud. 14:12). Laban contracted with Jacob that Rachel would become his wife at the end of this seven day bridal feast, and, in return, Jacob would serve Laban for an additional seven years. Ironically, Jacob, who had taken Esau’s birthright by deception, had himself been deceived by Laban.

Problem: Here Rebekah told Jacob, “Flee to my brother Laban in Haran. And stay with him a few days, until your brother’s fury turns away.” But, in Genesis 28:2 the reason given is to “take yourself a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.” Which was it?

Solution: Jacob returned for both reasons. Two or more reasons for the same thing are not uncommon in the Bible. Compare the following:

(1) Moses’ exclusion from the Promised Land was for unbelief (Num. 20:12), for rebellion (Num. 27:14), for trespass (Deut. 32:51), and for rash words (Ps. 106:33).

(2) Moses’ condemnation for numbering the people was for taxation (Ex. 38:26) and for a military enrollment (Num. 1:2–3; 2:32).

(3) Saul was rejected by God for an unlawful sacrifice (1 Sam. 13:12–13), for disobedience (1 Sam. 28:18), and for consulting the witch of Endor (1 Chron. 10:13).

Problem: Genesis 26:34 states that Esau married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. However, Genesis 36:2–3 states that Esau’s wives were Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter. Did Esau marry Elon’s daughter Basemath or his daughter Adah? Did Esau have two, three, or four wives?

Solution: The wives of Esau were four—Judith, the daughter of Beeri; Basemath, who was also named Adah, the daughter of Elon; Aholibamah the daughter of Anah; and Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. The reason Judith is not mentioned in Genesis 36:2–3 is because she bore him no children, and Genesis 36 is a statement of “the records of the generations of Esau” (Gen. 36:1, nasb). Also, it was a common practice for men and women to be known by more than one name. Apparently, Basemath, the daughter of Elon, was also named Adah and is so identified in Genesis 36:2 in order to distinguish her from Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. So Esau had four wives.

Problem: In Genesis 21:31 Abraham named this city Beersheba (“Well of the Oath”). But later (in Gen. 26:33), Isaac gave it the same name. But it is highly unlikely that two different people at two different times would call the same place by the same name.

Solution: This is not unlikely at all for two reasons. First, the second person was the son of the first person and may have been familiar with his father’s experience there. Second, Isaac’s similar experience may have occasioned the memory of the name his father gave to this same place. So it is not at all uncommon that Isaac would have later renewed the name his father had earlier given to this important place in their lives.